Slashdot Mirror
Facebook, Twitter Execs Admit Failures, Warn of 'Overwhelming' Threat To Elections (gizmodo.com)
Openly recognizing their companies' past failures in rare displays of modesty, Facebook and Twitter executives touted new efforts to combat state-sponsored propaganda across their platforms before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, acknowledging that the task is often "overwhelming" and proving a massive drain on their resources. Gizmodo: In opening remarks on Wednesday, Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, acknowledged that Facebook had been "too slow to act" in 2016 against the Kremlin-backed campaign that was designed to sow discord among American voters. "That's on us," she said, describing Moscow's meddling as "completely unacceptable" and a violation of Facebook's values "and of the country we love." "We're investing for the long term because security is never a finished job," Sandberg added, noting that Facebook has increased its security and communications staff to 20,000 people, doubling it over the past year. "Our adversaries are determined, creative, and well-funded," she said. "But we are even more determined -- and we will continue to fight back."
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, meanwhile, portrayed the matter as not just a threat to democracy, but as a threat to the overall health and security of his business, saying that above all else, Twitter's goal is to serve a "global public conversation." Dorsey also acknowledged a range of threats faced by his company, including widespread abuse, manipulation by foreign powers, and "malicious automation" (i.e., bots). "Any attempts to undermine the integrity of our service is antithetical to our fundamental rights," he said, calling freedom of expression a "core tenant" upon which the Twitter is based. Google, which was also asked to appear before the committee, chose not to do so. An empty chair was left at the table next to Sandberg and Dorsey to signify Google's absence.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, meanwhile, portrayed the matter as not just a threat to democracy, but as a threat to the overall health and security of his business, saying that above all else, Twitter's goal is to serve a "global public conversation." Dorsey also acknowledged a range of threats faced by his company, including widespread abuse, manipulation by foreign powers, and "malicious automation" (i.e., bots). "Any attempts to undermine the integrity of our service is antithetical to our fundamental rights," he said, calling freedom of expression a "core tenant" upon which the Twitter is based. Google, which was also asked to appear before the committee, chose not to do so. An empty chair was left at the table next to Sandberg and Dorsey to signify Google's absence.
Agreed. This is puzzling.
Why would Facebook and Twitter admit that their business is a threat to democracy.
If true, shouldn't we shut these non-essential websites down until they can operate safely?
Should the US block them until they can operate a safe business?
The only current threat is THEIR censorship of political opposition who they are intolerant of.
Either they support free speech or they do not.
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write. They are corporate entities dealing with the public at large. They want to attract as large a public as possible to boost their incomes and help out their shareholders; sometimes that means removing things like hate speech that might otherwise make their platforms less desirable to certain demographics.
Facebook and Twitter aren't required to give you free speech.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Sometimes racism is just that... racism. Removing hate speech doesn't have to be about Conservatives vs Liberals.
I'm an centrist independent and I'm fully for Twitter and Facebook removing racist posts (not that I use Facebook or Twitter myself). The fact that a small percentage of Republicans (and it is a small percentage-not all Republicans are racist douche-bags; the party existed before Trump and used to be fairly intolerant of racism like the rest of us) feel it is necessary for racism to be allowed to express their political views is quite telling about what really drives those individuals.
I fully support freedom of speech, but media companies are not required to post and keep every single thing you write on their platforms- nor should the be.
There are pro-white supremacy websites out there. If you're offended that racism isn't allowed on your media site of choice- go use one of those which do allow it and leave everyone else alone.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
People don't think you're a fucking idiot because you post stupid fucking idiotic things like this....they think you're a fucking idiot because it's so incredibly obvious you are.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write.
Fuck off with this tired old propaganda piece. They're corporations, they are only entities by virtue of the power granted by the government, the government does not have the right to quell free speech so neither does any corporation, period. They know damn well censorship is on shaky grounds and people are getting fed up with it, which is exactly why they're bitching about how much of a menace they themselves are. It's a tactic to try to get people to scream "please of please censor us, for you are clearly our wise superiors." Fuck them and fuck their sociopathic attempts to control the masses through censorship, and fuck you too for being dumb enough to be their halfwit shill.
Newspapers can chose not to publish letters to the editor and have for all time. TV stations aren't required to broadcast your home movies if you send them in. If you send an addendum to a Steven King novel... guess what... the publisher isn't required to include it as part of the novel. Heck- if you record a song in your mother's basement and send it to Nickelback- they aren't even required to include it in their next album. If you give Webster a new definition for their dictionary stating that the word donkey now means dog, they will probably ignore you. A buy sell newspaper could even choose not to list your ad.
This isn't about censorship- there is certainly nothing new about this; it's happened longer than the internet age has existed. It's just about private corporations choosing what they publish on their own platforms- that THEY OWN... and they absolutely have the right to not publish your racist drivel if they don't want to.
You don't like it? There are websites that would love to hear how much you hate minorities and women- go post on one of their websites if that is more your crowd. You can go to 4chan if you think facebook and twitter are too tame for your liking. You have options and places to go to spout bile if you really want to.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
What is puzzling about it?
The people running Facebook and Twitter are progressives who believe that more government regulation is a good thing (and for them, it is). They are "admitting" this in order to gin up calls for regulations on their industry. Regulations on social media sites would lock new competitors out.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I especially like the hover text on that XKCD:
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?